WG 3 meeting in Karlsruhe COST Action 636 Xenobiotics in the Urban Water Cycle

4th meeting for COST Action 636
WG 3 “Impact Assessment”

Xenobiotics in the Urban Water Cycle
29-30 March 2007 in Karlsruhe, Germany

Minutes

Participants

Triantafyllos Albanis / University of Ioannina, Department of Chemistry / GR
Anders Baun / DTU, Institute of Environment & Resources / DK
Marlen Ines Vasquez Hadjilyra / University of Cyprus / CY
Ralph Hobby / University Duisburg-Essen, IEWT / DE
Verena Höckele / Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe GmbH / DE
Joanna Kalka / Environmental BiotechnologyDepartmentSilesianUniversity of Technology / PL
Ivana Ivancev-Tumbas / University of Novi Sad, Chemistry Department / YU
Markus Lehmann / LUBW, Karlsruhe / DE
IrinaLucaciu / National Research and Development Institute for Industrial Ecology / RO
Sureyya Meric / University of Salerno / IT
Ricardo Manuel Nunes Salgado / Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia da Universidade Nova de Lisboa / PT
Ivana Teodorovic / University of Novi Sad, Department of Biology and Ecology / YU
Milda Zita Vosyliene / Institute of Ecology of VilniusUniversity / LT

The meeting in Karlsruhe was a joint meeting of WG 4 with WG 3 “Impact assessment”.

At first Ralph Hobby gave an overview of the work of WG 3 from September 2005 till this day. The main goals of WG 3 are

  • To define the state of the art for assessment of xenobiotics
  • To clarify if the available methods are suitable to assess xenobiotics with regard to adverse effects for ecosystems and human beings
  • If the methods are suitable the WG 3 has to recommend the best methods.
  • If the methods are not suitable WG 3 must
  • define the gaps (what do we need for assessment?)
  • propose R&D projects to develop the suitable methods

The main resultsof the work of WG 3 and the resulting questions are:

  • WG 3 team developed an EXCEL data file with nearly available biotests arranged with regard to the used animals/plants (microorganisms, algae, plants, rotifer, crustaceans, fishes, amphibians and others).
  • For each tests the effects are listed, which can be assessed.
  • It has to be discussed how to use these data for the impact assessment, e. g.monitoring results,complex composition effects,treatment, treatment efficiencywith the aims of risk assessment and protection of aquatic and human life.
  • These data are also suitable for the decision whether the available tests are suitable or not. This data file is the first step to achieve one of the main goal of WG 3, which is to answer / deal with the questions:
  • Which effects (of substances) are caused and are important for the ecosystem and human beings?
  • How it is possible to measure these effects?
  • Do we know the suitable methods for assessment?
  • Do we need new assessment methods?

The following topics were scheduled for the WG 3 meeting:

  • Presentations as initiation of the discussion to meet the goals mentioned above
  • Identification of gaps in the present knowledge with regard to the assessment of Xenobiotics in urban environment
  • Discussion with the focus on
  • Present knowledge of assessment
  • Assessment of effects or substances?
  • Are there tracer substances for assessment?
  • Gaps of knowledge?
  • How to deal with the gaps?
  • “Impact assessment in the EU WFD”, joint session with WG 4
  • Game of gaps (together with WG 4)
  • Future actions and topics of the next meeting

Results of the meeting:

Presentations as initiation of the discussion to meet the goals mentioned above

Marlene Vasques Sureyya Meric: Impact assessment of pharmaceuticals in water and waste water complex mixture matrices

Topics of the presentation:

  • Categories of pharmaceuticals
  • Use of pharmaceuticals in different countries
  • Environmental concentrations in water bodies
  • Impact assessment of pharmaceuticals to aquatic organisms
  • Modelling related to pharmaceuticals
  • Previous, on-going research projects and related links for going research projects and related links forpharmaceuticals pharmaceuticals
  • Gaps regarding research on pharmaceuticals
  • Conclusions

As results of the presentation the following gaps were identified:

  • New models are necessary to describe/predict impacts (e. g. QSAR)
  • Development of new biotestsystems for predicting fate and systems and effects of API (Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient)and metabolites
  • Increase understanding in mixture toxicities
  • Implementation of field studies
  • Increase understanding of mode of action of API in other aquatic organisms how?
  • Linkage between existing data (regarding humans, mammals)and new data (regarding other organisms)
  • Increase understanding of mechanisms of degradation and elimination in WWTPs (Waste Water Treatment Plants) and also fate in sludge line
  • Tests have to be payed, costs !

Ivana Ivancev-Tumbas: Some knowledge gaps on physico-chemical aspects of xenobiotics assessment in environment

  • Topics of the presentation:
  • Fate and transport of organics in water cycle (polar vs nonpolar substances)
  • Overview of different projects and results
  • Poseidon project
  • Structure/effects of ox products
  • ”Formation of resistance” as a toxicological endpoint
  • Chronic tests
  • Groundwater mobility
  • EU P-three project
  • Monitoring of pharmaceuticals and industrial chemicals
  • Highest conc. from municipal WWTP
  • 40 polar compounds were assessed – removal processes
  • No effects of by-products was seen
  • Study on EDCs in DW, Wenzel et al 2003, Final report based on published literature and survey of waterworks in EU; Gaps which were found:
  • For final conclusions regarding the European wide exposure of consumers to endocrine disrupters through drinking water, the database is too small.More data from a grater number of waterworks in Europe are required.
  • In the case study only a limited set of highly relevant substances could be analysed. Information on other drinking water contaminants with potential endocrine activity is limited. Therefore, additional studies on the occurrence of further endocrine disrupting compounds should be performed.
  • It should also be examined, whether pesticides other than the most frequently measured exceed the limit value of the Drinking Water Directive.
  • There is a need for research on the removal efficiency of different water treatment processes in order to better understand the removal of potential EDCs.
  • COMPREHEND
  • YES assays – not in accordance with chemical measurements; SPE yielded higher effects
  • For most of pollutants it is possible to achive 85% removal or even more within wastewater treatment either by sorption or biodegradation processes.
  • However there are substances which can be formed during wastewater treatment (e.g. alkyl phenol ethoxylates) or with removal less than 50 % (carbamazepine, iodinated contrast media, chlorinated organophosphorous compounds, etc).
  • Sediments
  • River sediments studied in Aquaterra project – background conc, adsorption
  • Investigationof the pollutant burden of Danubian sediments and suspended solids, including the determination of surface bound nutrients.
  • Sorption/desorption behavior of hydrophobic organic compound (HOC) onto sediment organic matter (SOM), sorption is a major process determining the fate and bioavailability of HOCs in sediments and soils.Desorption parameters could be used as a better predictor for HOC sorption behavior. This is an important finding since the desorption process has a significant environmental impact during the remediation of contaminated sites, with the rate and the amount of pollutants sorbed to SOM which can be released to the water phase mainly affected by this process.
  • Questions / gaps:
  • Chemical transformations ?
  • Effects of products?
  • Chronic toxicity assessment
  • Physico-chemical interactions:
  • Problems with measurements
  • Problems in isotherm testing
  • Aging
  • Interactions with NOM and SOM and implications for tretmant and fate /behavior in environment
  • Sediment particle size influence

Joanna Kalka: Endocrine disruptors occurence in urban waters and possible methods for assessment

  • Topics of the presentation:
  • Definition of endocrine system, EDC
  • OECD guidelines for EDC identification
  • Mammals, birds, fish: No screening level test
  • Mammals OECD 421/422 (subchronic), OECD 414/415/416 (chronic)
  • Birds OECD 206 (chronic)
  • Fish: no OECD subchronic or chronic tests
  • Reptiles, amphibian – no test, none under development in OECD
  • Invertebrates – no tests, but recommended by OECD
  • Identified gaps
  • Development of further methods is necessary
  • Results from different countries using same test don’t correlate

The afternoon session started with the presentation by Anders Baun: “The best “biotest battery” Status of the EXCEL data file containing all available biotests which was developed by WG 3”:

  • Actual EXEL sheet was presented by Anders Baun
  • No one of the participants seems to be able to propose the best biotest battery
  • Further WG 3 members agreed to add experiences of successful application of biotests in the Excel sheet. In doing so it should also be classified according to the kind of the aquatic system (often used, sometimes used, not used)
  • WG 3 agreed not to consider the quality of standardisation

Identification of gaps in the present knowledge with regard to the assessment of Xenobiotics in urban environment

Discussion

In the following discussion the results of the presentations were discussed and also the fact, that quite often there is no correlation between the measured effect caused by a substance and the concentration of the substance due to different materials and animals. May be the matrix of the water may impact the effects.

Water matrix affecting outcome of standardized toxicity tests:

  • Temperature dependency of sorption – locally increased temperature during the day
  • pH, hardness influence results of toxicity tests
  • Organic acids & bases – iontrap
  • Organics in soil act as catalysts for photolysis, but not in water where sorption is protecting
  • Temperature dependence on toxicity ?
  • Types of matrices – standardized categorization and effect

The main results of the discussion are:

  • New methods are necessary to assess Xenobiotics especially for complex mixtures. There are no EQS (Environmental Quality standars) for complex mixtures, only for single substances.

“Impact assessment in the EU WFD”, joint session with WG 4

This session was hold together with WG 4 members. After a presentation of TZW by Frank Sacher, Markus Lehmann from LUBW, a regional authority for environment and nature conservation in Germany (section for rivers and integrated water protection), gave an overview about the impact assessment in the EU Water Framework Directive. In his very interesting presentation, he explained how priority substances are selected according to the WFD and how ecotoxicological data are used to determine Environmental Quality Standards (EQS). The presentation will be uploaded soon to the website of COST Action 636. After the presentation, the implementation of the WFD in other EU member states and the inclusion of new compounds in the list of priority compounds were extensively discussed.

Game of gaps (together with WG 4)

Together with the members of WG 4, a “Game of Gaps” was played. This game was excellently developed and organised by Anders Baun with the support of Ralph Hobby and Ivana Ivančev-Tumbas. The objective of the game was to deal in a trans-disciplinary approach with a scenario of environmental pollution from different sources, to evaluate the available information and to identify the existing gaps.

The major outcome of the game was increased discussions within and between WG 3 and WG 4 and a focus on our current gaps in knowledge regarding chemical and biological issues of xenobiotics in the urban environment. It was decided that the results of this exercise will be presented to all WGs at the next meeting in Santiago de Compostela.

Future actions and topics of the next meeting

The next meeting of WG 3 will take place together with the Management Committee meeting and the meetings of the other WGs in Santiago de Compostela on September 11/12, 2007.

The topics of the next meeting are:

  • Follow up of the game of gaps
  • After the next meeting it will be decided about enlarge the game of gaps to the other groups (WGs) (WG drinking water treatment)
  • Results of the actualized EXCEL data sheet will be discussed
  • How to proceed with the data set?
  • Can we recommend a part of the methods for the assessment of Xenobiotics?
  • Can we use the data set to draw conclusions with regard to new methods, which have to be developed?
  • Is the quality of the data set high enough to prepare a common publication by the real experts of the WG 3?
  • Are we able to recommend R&D topics to the COST Action?
  • New methods to assess Xenobiotics are necessary: How to proceed (Which are the most important new methods for which issue, do we nee additional experts?)

1 / 8